- The demolition of blue-collar male earning power has hurt family formation among less-educated Americans.
Ah, the root cause of the decline of the family is of course, men earning less.
- The triumph of feminism was that it gave people so many more choices. But having choices means making choices.
Buuurrrrnnn.
- The challenge for society, meanwhile, is to push some of those choices down below the top rungs of the economic ladder.
I'm not exactly sure what he means by this. Is he saying that society is trying to devalue the 'choices' at the top rungs of the economic ladder, or that it should?
- The recession that followed the collapse of the housing bubble took a terrible toll on these guys; overall, it cost twice as many men jobs as it did women...Women, meanwhile, have seen dramatic economic gains as more of them entered the workforce and their wages increased...Education is crucial to economic success, and women are now getting more bachelor’s degrees than men.
Maybe one day all of this will result in women earning as much as men (yes, even taking pregnancy into account), or having access to the same upper management positions that men have.
- Can women have it all? A recent essay in the Atlantic Monthly has unleashed a furious debate.
I actually have an answer to offer, but before I give it, I want to suggest that the focus is on the wrong question. A more urgent one at this juncture is: Can blue-collar men have anything?
If we accept what the author posits, that there can be a 'proper question to ask', I see no good reason why the author's question is the correct one at this stage in the game for our society. All other things being equal, if I'm a job seeker in the USA today, please let me be a man, and (incidentally) please let me be white.
If the author wanted to ask a more interesting (and valid imho) question given his paradigm, he would have completely stripped out the 'men' out of 'blue-collar men' and asked if blue collar workers can have anything. I think the massive increase in capture of wealth by the richest few percent of Americans at the expense of the middle and lower classes is a lot more compelling than the non-existent comparative employment crisis that men face.
- If we accept what the author posits, that there can be a 'proper question to ask', I see no good reason why the author's question is the correct one at this stage in the game for our society. All other things being equal, if I'm a job seeker in the USA today, please let me be a man, and (incidentally) please let me be white.
From where I sit, the future (in this regard) looks positive.
On the first point, yeah, I don't think that men or women can have it all. You only have so much time, but it really depends on how you define 'having it all'. Women can be CEOs and have families. They can certainly have it all in that sense. But in doing so, they are going to have to make the same time-family sacrifices that men do.
- Women can be CEOs and have families. They can certainly have it all in that sense. But in doing so, they are going to have to make the same time-family sacrifices that men do.
I agree that being a white male is the best starting point, for sure. I wouldn't know... I'm brownish.
You're right though, capability is something that is earned and many people don't get the chance or the tools to do so.
- That may sound like a loaded question, but it’s difficult to overstate the long-run economic cataclysm affecting this particular group (and, by extension, working-class women).
To me, the 'by extension' part seems to suggest that men are on the front lines, and women should hold their complaint until the men are back on their feet.
The US is one of 4 countries in the world without guaranteed maternity leave. Women should raise hell, regardless of the recent misfortune of male workers.